Others have done a good job responding, but I want to add to the conversation by noting that this topic is pointing to one of the biggest and most consequential errors of ID and its associated “calculations” of probability. The bullseye analogy is the best metaphor for this error, which can be restated in this way:

When you choose an outcome, any outcome, in history, and calculate the probability of its occurrence, you will get an astronomically low number. This will be completely meaningless by itself. The only way to make that probability informative is to also show that the outcome was special in some way. In essentially every conversation about ID and probability, there is an unstated assumption that the outcome (a gene sequence, a bacterial structure, a particular species) was The Outcome. And this is not obviously true, indeed it is often clearly false. So, to claim that the existence of a particular enzyme (and its particular structure) is a Unique Outcome is to commit the bullseye fallacy. That person is looking at where the arrows landed and painting targets around them.

It’s extremely common in ID conversations, and once it is corrected, a large number of pro-ID “arguments” fall to pieces.